Amendment No. 3- RFP 26-048-CB.pdf

AMENDMENT No. 3

DATED: August 18, 2026

Palm Beach County Procurement Department 240 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, FL 33415

RFP No. 26-048/CB

Central County Economic Development Master Plan

Request for Proposal Due Date: August 27, 2026

This Amendment is issued to provide additional information and clarification to the RFP document:

Proposers are advised of the following changes to the RFP:

1. The deadline for receipt of proposals has been changed from August 20, 2026, to August 27, 2026. The time remains 4:00 p.m. local time.

If you already sent in a proposal, you may make changes or add to the original if necessary. Please mark package accordingly.

2. Section 1.9, TIMETABLE, has been revised as follows:

1.9 TIMETABLE

The anticipated schedule and deadline for the RFP and Contract approval are as follows:

Activity Date Time Location

Deadline for receipt 08/27/2026 4:00 p.m. Procurement Department of proposals 240 S. Military Trail

W. P. B., FL 33415

Selection Committee 09/17/2026 10:00 a.m. Procurement Department Meeting 50 S. Military Trail

Room 1N-142 North/South

W.P.B., FL 33415

Oral Presentations/ TBD 10:00 a.m. Procurement Department Selection Committee 50 S. Military Trail Meeting (if conducted) Room 1N-142 North/South

Deadline for receipt of TBD TBD Procurement Department BAFO’s (if required) BAFO’s 50 S. Military Trail, Ste.110

W. P. B., FL 33415

Selection Committee TBD TBD Procurement Department Meeting (if required) 50 S. Military Trail

Posting Date of Notice TBD TBD Procurement Department 50 S. Military Trail, Ste. 110 W.P.B., FL 33415 www.pbcgov.com/procurement http://www.pbcgov.com/procurement

AMENDMENT No. 3 to

3. SECTION 2.26, PERFORMANCE BOND/LETTER OF CREDIT, has been deleted in its entirety.

4. ARTICLE 6, PERFORMANCE BOND/LETTER OR CREDIT OF ATTACHMENT 1,

SAMPLE CONTRACT has been deleted in its entirety.

5. ARTICLE 15, INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION D, OF ATTACHMENT 1,

SAMPLE CONTRACT is revised as follows:

“D. Professional Liability: CONSULTANT shall maintain Professional Liability, or equivalent Errors & Omissions Liability, at a limit of liability not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, and $2,000,000 per aggregate. When a self-insured retention (SIR) or deductible exceeds $10,000, COUNTY reserves the right, but not the obligation, to review and request a copy of CONSULTANT’s most recent annual report or audited financial statement. For policies written on a “claims-made” basis, CONSULTANT warrants the Retroactive Date equals or precedes the effective date of this Contract. In the event the policy is canceled, non-renewed, switched to an Occurrence Form, retroactive date advanced, or any other event triggering the right to purchase a Supplement Extended Reporting Period (SERP) during the term of this Contract, CONSULTANT shall purchase a SERP with a minimum reporting period not less than three (3) years after the expiration of the contract term. The requirement to purchase a SERP shall not relieve the CONSULTANT of the obligation to provide replacement coverage. The Certificate of Insurance providing evidence of the purchase of this coverage shall clearly indicate whether coverage is provided on an “occurrence” or “claims-made” form. If coverage is provided on a “claims-made” form the Certificate of Insurance must also clearly indicate the “retroactive date” of coverage.”

6. Questions received and the County’s responses:

A. Questions received from Metropolitan Center at Florida International University and the

County’s responses:

Q= Question, A= Answer

Q.1. Regarding Section 2.26 PERFORMANCE BOND / LETTER OF CREDIT on page 15 of the RFP, it is the opinion of Florida International University's Risk Management Office that this requirement should not be applicable to a state university.

As an instrumentality of the State of Florida, FIU does not typically furnish commercial performance bonds or letters of credit. Under Florida law, a state agency that enters a valid, statutorily authorized contract cannot invoke sovereign immunity to avoid a breach-of-contract action, so the County already has a direct, enforceable remedy against FIU without a bond.

A.1. According to Florida law, a Florida state university is not automatically exempt from providing commercial performance bonds or LoCs when submitting a bid in response to a county RFP. There is no state statute that expressly exempts state universities from commercial bonding requirements when acting as bidders/contractors in county procurement processes. FS § 255.05 broadly requires any person/entity entering a contract with a county for construction or public work to provide a payment and performance bond. The limited exemptions from these bonds/LoCs are based on contract dollar thresholds, rather than on the governmental status of the contractor. While Florida universities enjoy protections from county regulation in other situations, those protections shield universities when they are the procuring entity, not when they are bidding to provide services to a county.

Note that the statute provides no exemption based on the governmental status of the contractor or bidder. As noted in the Florida state statutes, the exemptions that do exist are triggered by the value of the contract (and this RFP is way above the minimum dollar amount exempted in the statutes), and the discretion of the county awarding official. The identity of the contractor as a state entity is not an exempted category. Moreover, as the 3rd Dist. Court of Appeals explained in Florida International University Board of Trustees v. Alexandre, “Sovereign immunity shields state entities from tort liability, but the Florida Supreme Court has articulated a common law exception for contractual activity that occurs outside the state entity's governmental role.” Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Alexandre, 365 So. 3d 436 (Fla. Dist.

Ct. App. 2023).

The bond/LoC which was set for this RFP was a contractual obligation, i.e., a condition of participation in the procurement process. There is no Florida authority holding that sovereign immunity exempts a university from providing security required as a condition of a contract that it voluntarily seeks to enter.

B. Questions received from HR&A Advisors and the County’s responses:

Q= Question, A= Answer

Q.1. Article 18 includes a broad indemnity obligation and duty to defend that is not limited to losses caused by the Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions. Would the County consider revising this provision so that the Consultant’s indemnity obligation applies only to damages arising from its negligent acts, errors, or omissions and removing the duty to defend? As a professional services provider, we believe liability should be tied to fault-based conduct, and a duty to defend creates an obligation before any determination of responsibility has been made.

A.1. The County can partially accept the suggestion. Any contract exceptions should be provided in your proposal for consideration.

Q.2. Section 3.6 requires the proposer’s most recent audited financial statements from within the past two years. If a firm does not have that, what evidence or support would be required to prove our financial position in lieu of audited financials? Would the County accept CPA-reviewed financial statements, together with documentation of a recent administrative and financial audit conducted by the County of Los Angeles confirming that the firm is in good financial standing, as satisfying this requirement? If not, please confirm whether the absence of independently audited financial statements would cause a proposal to be deemed non-responsive.

A.2. Yes, the County will accept CPA reviewed financial statements.

All changes addressed in this Amendment No. 3 shall be incorporated into RFP No. 26-048/CB and the final contract. All other terms and conditions of the RFP.

NOTE: Please acknowledge receipt of this Amendment No. 3 by signing below and returning this page with your Proposal Response. Each Amendment to the RFP shall be signed by an authorized agent and submitted with the proposal or the proposal shall be deemed non-responsive.

Christal D. Bakie Procurement Project Analyst

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

COMPANY NAME SIGNATURE

DATE

1.9 Timetable